CC 2015-11-10_12c Status Reports_Recycled Water ProjectsMEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
~
TERESA MCCLISH,'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO-R
SUBJECT: STATUS OF THE SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITARY
DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER PROJECT AND THE -PISMO BEACH
RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES PLANNlf'IG STUDY
DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recom,mended that the City Council receive and file status reports regarding the
South San Luis Obispo County· Sanitary District (SSLOCSD) recycled water project and
the Pismo Beach Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study and direct staff to work
collaboratively with south county jurisdictions on the development of a regionai recycled
water project.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONN-EL RESOURCES:
Expenditures associated with the City's participation to match grant funds for the Water
Recycling Facilities Planning Grant from the State Water Resources Control Board w_ith
the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) include $40,877 and
are budgeted in the Water Fund. There are no other financial impacts with potential
recycled water projects at this time. Staff resources will continue to be required for
participation in ongoing regional efforts. Addressing water supply is one of the City's
priorities identified in the Critical Needs Action Plan. ·
BACKGROUND:
After studying numerous supplemental water supply options the City has identified
recycled water as a priority. The City's long-term water supply was identified as a
significant issue during development of the City's 2001 General Plan Update. At the
August 24, 2004 meeting, the City Council r~viewed a Water Alternatives Study
identifyi_ng 17 alternatives for Council con"sideration. Since that time, a number of
stu'dies have been completed on the following alternatives-:
~ N~cimiento Water project
~ Price Canyon oil field
~ Recycled water
~ Desalination
~ Raising of the spillway at the Lopez Lake dam
~ Acquisition of State water
~ Lopez Spillway Raise study
In June 2010, staff presented a water analysis and strategies to the City Council, and it
was agreed to_ address future needs by expar:iding water conservation efforts, seeking
Item 12.c. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
STATUS OF REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
PAGE2
the purchase of State water, and continuing work on the potential for a water recycling
project in the future. The City Council directed staff to prepare a ballot measure for the
June 2012 election to enable the purchase of State water. However, due to a number of
concerns, this was later delayed to obtain additional data and further study other
alternatives.
. .
Meanwhile, in 2009 a comprehensive Water Recycling. Study was completed, which
was an update to an original study prepared in 2001. Additional studies were prepared
in 2010 to assess the potential for a distribution system from either the South County
Sanitation District or Pismo Beach wastewater treatment plants to potential users.
The limited number of user sites has been a barrier to making installation of a
distribution system for turf irrigation cost effective· and worthwhile. As a result, the
recent focus has been on determining the feasibility of using recycled yvater to improve
groundwater supply reliability through recharge by injection or surface spreading, crop
irrigation pumping offsets, and/or streamflow augmentation. Among other
recommendations, the 2010 report proposed to:
Conduct additional feasibility studies to address hydrogeologic issues relative to
aquifer recharge. This study is needed to define the locations suitable for injection
or spreading basins, and to consider well locations for possible seawater barrier
protection.
In 2014, the Council directed staff to pursue the following goals:
>-Meet the City's future projected water demand of its buildout population by:
· • Meeting the reduction in per capita use as prescribed in the Water
Conservation Act of 2009;
• Proceeding with work necessary to develop a .recycled water project
that can be used to prevent seawater intrusion in order to provide long-
range protection of the City's groundwater supply; and
>-Ensure water use efficiency and drought protection through regional
conjunctive use, storage .and management of surface and groundwater
supplies. ·
Additionally, in 2014, the Co.uncil supported the NCMA Technical Group's Strategic Plan
that provides a· framework for identifying common water resource planning goals and
objectives and to establish a 10-year work plan for implementation of those efforts,
including pursuing recycled water options.
In November 2014, the Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan. (RRWSP) was
completed that was one component of an update to the SLO Integrated Regional Water
Management Plan (IRWMP), and was funded by a Round 2 IRWM Regional Planning
Grant from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (See Attachment 1 for
the Executive Study). According to the study, the SSLOCSD has the largest volume of
effluent considered in the RRWSP and the largest opportunities for large-scale reuse;
Item 12.c. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
STATUS OF REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
PAGE 3 .
however, landscape irrigation projects are expensive ($3,090+/af) and the more cost
effective reuse opportunities -agricultural irrigation, industrial reuse, groundwater
recharge, seawater intrusion barrier, and surface water augmentation -require
institutional, legal, outreach, and financial planning to be feasible.
In May of 2015, an Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan planning grant
funded a groundwater basin characterization study of the Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin. The objectives of the overall study were _to compile previous studies and data,
develop a lithologic database and prepare geologic cross-sections, perform and analyze
pumping tests, and evaluate several key hydrogeologic issues for the study area. It is
primarily intended to be a basis for future studies related to a Salt and Nutrient
Management Plan and the development of a numerical groundwater model.
Also in 2015, two specific recycled water projects have emerged as potential regional
projects. The City of Pismo Beach completed a Recycled Water Facilities Planning
Study and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitary District (SSLOCSD) is
performing a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study for a Satellite Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF), potentially located along one of the upstream· trunk lines that
conveys Arroyo Grande's wastewater to the regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. On
June 23, 2015, the Council directed staff to continue collaboration ·and participation in
each of the regional recycled water proje~ts.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
SSLOCSD Recy~led Water Facilities Planning Study -The South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitary District (SSLOCSD) is currently completing a Recycled Water Facilities
Planning Study for Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facility (SWRRF). For this study,
the SSLOCSD has received a grant from the State Water Resources Control Board to
fund approximately 50% of the project cost ($75,000). The remaining cost~ are being
split evenly between the SSLOCSD and the City of Arroyo Grande. The study is
evaluating options for a SWRRF, potentially located along one of the upstream trunk
lines that serves the City of Arroyo Grande. This proposed facility, commonly referred
to as a decentralized wastewater scalping plant, could provide recycled water for
irrigation and groundwater recharge and would be located .outside of the coastal zone.
Included as the first task of the RWFPS is ar:i Investment Analysis intended to determine
the economic feasibility of the proposed SWRRF. This Investment Analysis Technical
Memorandum (TM) identifies possible SWWRF treatment and beneficial reuse
alternatives (Attachment 1 ). Cost estimates for the SWWRF alternatives and potential
costs savings for the District's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Redundancy
Project were developed and then compared against other potential supplemental water
supply alternatives.
The Investment Analysis determined that the unit cost of the water from each SWRRF
alternative could vary significantly depending upon the volume and typ~ of beneficial
Item 12.c. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
STATUS OF REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
PAGE4
reuse with the lowest alternative that includes 1,677 AFY of Agricultural Irrigation having
the lowest unit cost. The Investment Analysis additionally identified that a SWRRF could
potentially reduce the capacity of the Redundancy Project by reducing the average
annual flow to the WWTP. This reduction in capacity could result in a cost savings
ranging from $1.2 to $5 million. When applying this potential cost savings to each of the
SWRRF alternatives, it reduced the unit costs by approximately $100-200 per AF.
Based on the results of the Investment Analysis and the competiveness of the SWRRF
alternatives with other potential supplemental supplies, it is recommended that the
SWRRF concept be carried forward for further analysis and completion of the RWFPS.
It is additionally recommended that the RWFPS include a supplementary alternative that
evaluates the construction of an_ offsite tertiary or advanced water treatment facility that
could treat effluent from the WWTP for use as agriculture irrigation or groundwater
recharge. This facility could be located outside of the Coastal Zone, Tsunami Inundation
Zone and the Arroyo Grande Creek 100-YR Flood Plain, but could take advantage of
the existing primary and secondary treatment facilities at the WWTP. Additionally, this
facility could be potentially expanded to receive effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP
and realize potential unit costs savings associated with larger capacity facilities.
Pismo Beach Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study -In April of 2015, the City
of Pismo Beach recently completed a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study to
evaluate potential recycled water beneficial uses. The study evaluated several recycled
water system alternatives (e.g. landscape irrigation; inland recharge; seawater intrusion
barrier) that would allow the City of Pismo Beach and potential regional partners to
offset water demands and/a~ provide a new, drought proof source of water supply for
the region. Each of the alternatives was analyzed using a scoring and ranking process
that included economic and non-economic criteria. Based on the results of the scoring
and ranking process, both the inland recharge and seawater intrusion barrier
groundwater recharge alternatives were selected as the preferred alternative for moving
forward.
The study recommended implementation of a Regional Groundwater Sustainability
(RGS) Program consisting of the following conceptual improvements:
1. Upgrades to the existing WWTP to produce Advanced Purified Water for
groundwater recharge
a. Micro Filtration (MF)
b. Reverse Osmosis (RO)
c. Ultraviolet/Advanced Oxidation Process (UV/AOP)
d. Possible equalization. storage using abandoned onsite facilities or constructing
new storage
e. a, b, and c above are anticipated to occupy 5,000 SF on the WWTP site.
2. Waste Effluent Pump Station modifications (if needed) to convey secondary
treated peak flows and brine from the MF/RO to the ocean through the existing
Item 12.c. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
STATUS OF REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
PAGES
outfall line & diffuser
3. Recycled Water Distribution Facilities
a. 0.83 million gallon (MG) recycled water storage tank on the WWTP site
b. 20 hp recycled water booster pump station on the WWTP site
c. Approximately 4.5 miles of recycled water distribution piping from the WWTP
to the injection wells. A portion of the alignment may be able to be completed
by relining an abandoned steel pipeline in lieu of new pipeline construction.
4. Approximately four (4) recycled water injection wells overlying the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin (SMGB)
a. One injection well will be installed as a full scale pilot well using potable water
during the preliminary design phase to gather additional data to support final
design.
5. Up to eight (8) new groundwater monitoring wells. Use of existing monitoring
wells, if acceptable to the permitting agencies, could reduce the number of new
monitoring wells.
6. New potable water production well(s)
To initiate the next steps in the implementation of the RGS the City of Pismo Beach has
split the project into four phases, which are outlined in the graphic below. To complete
Phase 1, the City awarded SWCA Environmental Consultants with the contract to
prepare the necessary environmental documents on October 20th and is currently
reviewing engineering proposals to provide program management and develop the 10%
design for the RGS. To aid in developing regional partnerships, the City of Pismo
Beach has reached out to neighboring agencies to begin developing a governance
framework for the project that 'will provide equitable water supply benefit for all of the
participants.
ALTERNATIVES:
Rhase::2,
:Fin~l,R~~jgn,
The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration:
1. Receive and file status reports regarding the South San Luis Obispo County
Sanitary District (SSLOCSD) recycled water project and the Pismo Beach
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study and direct staff to work
Item 12.c. - Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
STATUS OF REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS
NOVEMBER 10, 2015
PAGE6
collaboratively with south county jurisdictions on the development of a
regional recycled water project;
2. Provide staff other direction.
ADVANTAGES:
The recycled water projects are potentially viable options to protecting and augmenting
existing water supplies. ,
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is required for· this item.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, November 5, 2015. The
Agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, November 6,
2015. No public comments were received.
Attachments:
1. Investment Analysis Technical Memorandum
Item 12.c. - Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
Technical Memorandum
Date: 11/2/2015 ,
To: John Clemons
South San Lyis Obispo County Sanitation District
1600 Aloha-Pl ·
Oceana, CA 93475
Prepared by: Kaylie Ashton, E.l.T, Jeanine Genchanok, E.l.T.
Reviewed by: Dan Heimel, P.E., Jeffery Szytel, P.E.
Phone:
Project: Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
SUBJECT: INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
-~wsc
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC.
(805) 489-6666.
The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (District) is interested in evaluating the feasibility of
constructing a satellite water resource recovery facility (SWRRF) to produce high quality recycled water by
treating flows from a portion of their service area. The District cont,racted with Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
(WSC) to prepare an applieation for a facilities planning grant under the state of California's Water Recycling
Funding Progr:am and to complete a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study (RWFPS) for the project. Included
as the first task of the RWFPS, is an Investment Analysis, intended to determine the economic feasibility of the . .
proposed SWRRF.
This Investment Analysis Technical Memorandum (TM) identifies possible SWWRF treatment and beneficial
reuse alternatives. Cost estimates for the S.WWRF alternatives and potential costs savings for the District's
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Redundancy Project were developed and then compared against other.
potential supplemental water supply alternatives. The TM is organized into the following main sections:
1. Executive Summary
2. Background
3. Investment Analysis Assumptions
4. Potential Recycled Water Alternatives
5. Investment Analysis
6. Implementation Considerations
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
11/2/2015 Page 1of18
Item 12.c. - Page 7
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Plonnmg Study
Investment Analysis
1 Executive Summary
:~wsc
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, I Ne:
To assist the District in evaluating the feasibility of constructing a SWRRF, WSC is preparing a RWFPS, which
includes as the first task an Investment Analysis. The Investment Analysis is intended to be a higher level
preliminary evaluation of the economic feasibility of the proposed SWRRF and includes the development of
comparative cost estimates for five (S) potential Recycled Water (RW) conceptual alternatives. The conceptual
, '
alternatives include diverting flow at three different locations along the District's trunk lines and use of recycled
water for agriculture (Ag) irrigation and groundwater recharge. The 'alternatives analyzed are outlined in Table
ES 1. The Investment Analysis also included an evaluation of potential savings that could be achieved in the
District's proposed Redundancy Project through the construction of a SWRRF.
Table ES 1. SWRRF Conceptual Alternatives Summary
Comparative Capital and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for each of the alternatives were
developed to create estimates of Unit Cost (i.e. $/AF) for each of the alternatives. For the cost estimates, a 30-
year life was assumed with an annual inflation rate of 3% and an interest rate on 100% debt of 5%. However, if
the projects were to be funded through Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program the interest rate
and associated unit costs could be much lower. The estimated costs for each of the alternatives are shown in
Table ES 2.
11/2/2015 Page,2of18
Item 12.c. - Page 8
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
Table ES 2 Unit Cost Estimates w/o Redundancy Pro1ect Cost Savings
awsc
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, !NC.
,$2,800 -. ----',' .·:·1
.. $2,100 ~~;·' . ~-~·-...1
-$6,80(f ,:,, :
'·$-Z ,4QQ~:· :J
$5,8Cfo'
--·~~-~~,~~~~
To estimate the potential savings that could be achieved in the Redundancy Project, it was assumed that a
SWRRF could divert a portion of the collection system flow and proportionally reduce the total flow at the
District's current WWTP and therefore the size of the Redundancy Project. These savings were then applied to
the unit cost estimates for each of the RW alternatives and the results are shown in Table ES 3. The RW unit
cost estimates were then compared to cost estimates for other potential supplemental supplies available in
region, which ranged from $1,300 to $3,000/AF.
Table ES 3. Unit Cost Estimates w/ Redundancy Pro1ect Savings
The Investment Analysis determined that the unit cost of the water from each SWRRF alternative could vary
significantly depending upon the volume and type of beneficial reuse. Of the different SWRRF options,
Alternative 2, which included 1,677 AFY of Ag Irrigation, appeared to have the lowest unit cost. The Investment
Analysis additionally identified that a SWRRF could potentially reduce the capacity of the Redundancy Project by
reducing the average annual flow to the WWTP. This reduction in capacity could result in a cost savings ranging
from $1.2 to $5 M. When applying this potential cost savings to each of the SWRRF alternatives, it reduced the
unit costs by approximately $100-200 per AF.
Based on the results of the Investment Analysis and the competiveness of the SWRRF alternatives with other
potential supplemental supplies, it is recommended that the SWRRF concept be carried forward for further
analysis and completion of the RWFPS. It is additionally recommended that the RWFPS include a supplementary
alternative that evaluates the construction of an offsite tertiary or advanced water treatment facility that could
treat effluent from the WWTP for use as agriculture irrigation or groundwater recharge. This facility could be
11/2/2015 Page 3of18
Item 12.c. - Page 9
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
~~wsc ~-
WATERSYST!:Ms CONSULTING, ]NC.
located outside of the Coastal Zone, Tsunami Inundation Zone and the Arroyo Grande Creek 100-YR Flood Plain,
but could take advantage of the existing primary and secondary treatment facilities at the WWTP. Additionally,
this facility could be potentially expanded to receive effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP and realize potential
unit costs savings associated with larger capacity facilities.
2 Background
The District's WWTP currently lacks sufficient redundancy for its secondary treatment system to allow the
existing trickling filter to be taken out. of.service for extended maintenance or in the.event of a process upset.
To provide the necessary redundancy, the District is currently planning the construction of a parallel secondary
treatment train or Redundancy Project, which would inc~ude an activated sludge aeration tank, a secondary
clarifier and sludge thickening/dewatering equipment. To help offset the costs of developing a recycled water
system, it was envisioned that the construction of a SWRRF could provide increased upstream treatment
capacity and reduce average flow rates at the existing WWTP. Consequently, the required capacity and cost of
the Redundancy Project c-ould be reduced. The recycled water from the SWRRF could provide the local water
supply agencies and/or farms with access to a supplemental water supply that could be used to offset
groundwater pumping or recharge the groundwater basin and improve water supply reliability for Southern San
Luis Obispo .County.
Figure 1 illustrates .the proposed SWRRF trunk Line connection locations evaluated as part of the Investment
Analysis. The potential locations are sited along the Arroyo Grande trunk line in the southern portion of the
District's service area near the Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. These sites were evaluated due to
their proximity to the agriculture fields and the City of Arroyo Grande. WSC performed. an lnvestm·ent Analysis to
develop the planning level cost estimates for a potential SWRRF. Several different site locations and beneficial
use alternatives were evaluated to provide a range of potential costs. The cost analysis considered capital and
O&M costs for each alternative and accounted for additional cost savings for reducing the current Redundancy
Project at the WWTP.
11/2/2015 Page 4of18
Item 12.c. - Page 10
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
Legend
r1J PotentialTrunk Line Connection
f.VwTPj SSLOCSD Existing WWTP
~ Sewer Trunk Line
SSLOCSD Agency Boundaries
SSLOCSD
Service Area and Sewer Trunk Lines
~wsc
WATER SYSTEMS (ONSU!:TING, INC.
----======iFeet 0 . 2,150 4,300
·-·~vvsc
WATER SYSTEMS.CONSULTING, INC
Figure 1. SSLOCSD Service Area and Proposed Trunk Line Connections
11/2/2015 Page 5of18
Item 12.c. - Page 11
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
3 Investment Analysis Assumptions '.
~wsc -~
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC.
The following section describes the sources of data and assumptions used in the Investment Analysis TM.
3.1 Wastewater Supply
WSC obtained estimates of the potential wastewater quantities that could be diverted at different locations
along the Arroyo Grande trunk Line from the 2011 Arroyo Grande Collection System hydraulic model. It was
determined from the City of Arroyo Grande Wastewater Master Plan (WSC 2012) that significant growth is not
anticipated in the upstream portion ofthe collection system nor significant increase in future flow rates;
therefore the current average annual demands were used for this analysis. It was assumed that the SWWRF
would have capacity to treat current Average Annual Flow (AAF) at the Trunk Line connection point, which for
the connection points evaluated in the Investment Analysis ranged from 0.48 Million Gallons/Day (MGD) to 1.5
MGD. The SWRRF was assumed to have sufficient redundancy capacity to allow for full time operations.
3.2 Redundancy Project
The Redundancy Project was assumed to have a capacity of 4.2 MGD (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2008) and a
total project cost of $19 million (MKN & Associates 2015) For the Investment Analysis, it was assumed that a
SWRRF would allow for a reduction in the sizing of the Redundancy Project.
3.3 Beneficial Use of Recycled Water
For this Investment Analysis, the types of reuse considered include:
• Agricultural Irrigation -Disinfected tertiary Recycled Water (RW).
• Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) -Full Advanced Treatment (FAT) with groundwater recharge and extraction
through surface spreading and/or direct injection.
RW must meet the State Water Resource Control Board Division of Drinking Water's California Code of
Regulations (CCR), Title 22. Title 22 defines four types of RW based on the treatment process used and water
quality produced. The four types are disinfected secondary RW, disinfected secondary -23 RW, disinfected
secondary-2.2 RW and disinfected tertiary RW. Groundwater Recharge Regulations were adopted into Title 22
on June 18th, 2014 due to the current drought conditions. These regulations discuss the following types of
recharge:
• Surface spreading without FAT
• Subsurface application by direct injection (FAT required for the entire flow)
• Surface spreading with FAT
The types of beneficial use and wastewater treatment requirements for each type of reuse are described further
in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
11/2/2015 Page 6of18
Item 12.c. - Page 12
Satel/Jte Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
3.3.1 Agriculture Irrigation
3.3.1.1 Potential RW Demand
'~WSC -'~
WATER SYSTU\lS CONSULTING, INC
To estimate potential RW demand for agriculture irrigation, WSC assumed that the crops being irrigated would
be truck crops (vegetables and fruits) and used a demand factor of 1.4 AFY/acre, based on the Gross Irrigation
Requirement Water Planning Area 5 (Fugro 2014). This demand factor was used to calculate the amount of
· acreage that could be irrigated depending on the range of RW supply available at the point of connection.
3.3.1.2 Wastewater Treatment Requirements
For unrestricted agricultural irrigation, RW must be treated to disinfected tertiary standards. Disinfected tertiary
is defined by Title 22 as filtered and subsequently disinfected wastewater that meets the following criteria:
(a) The filtered wastewater has been disinfected by either:
(1) A chlorine disinfedion process following filtration that provides a CT (the product of total
chlorine residual and modal contact time measured at the same point) value of not less than
450 milligram-minutes per liter at all times with a modal contact time of at least 90 minu_~es,
based on peak dry weather design flow; or
(2) A disinfection process that, when combined with the filtration process, has been
demonstrated to inactivate and/or remove 99.999 percent of the plaque forming units of F-
specific bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus in the wastewater. A virus that is at least as
resistant to disinfection as polio virus may be used for purposes of the demonstration.
(b) The median concentration of total coliform bacteria measured in the disinfected effluent does not
exceed an MPN of 2.2 per 100 milliliters utilizing the bacteriological results of the last seven days for
whic_h analyses have been. completed and the number of total coliform bacteria does not exceed an
MPN of 23 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample in any 30 day period. No sample shall exceed
an MPN of 240 total coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters.
For this study it was assumed that RW was treated to disinfected tertiary standards for the agriculture
irrigation alternatives, and that reverse osmosis was not required for TDS reduction.
3.3;2 Groundwater Recharge
Two sub alternatives were considered for the case of indirect potable reuse through groundwater recharge:
surface spreading basins and injection wells.
3.3.2.1 Surface Spreading Basin Locations
The San Luis Obispo Co_unty Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP) has identified the agriculture fields
to th~ north of Arroyo Grande High School as a site for potential surface spreading (Cannon 2014). A percolation
rate of 1 foot.per day was assumed for the Investment Analysis, consistent with the RRWSP.
3.3.2.2 Injection Well Locations
The City of Pismo Beach Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study (Pismo RWFPS) identified that inland injection
wells required a 200-foot setback from any water supply wells to meet the minimum 8 month retention time
within the groundwater basin before extraction per CCR Title 22 regulations (WSC 2015). -For this alternative,
consistent with the Pismo RWFPS, each well was assumed to be capable of injecting 200-300 AFY based on the
transmissivity of the aquifers (WSC 2015).
11/2/2015 Page 7of18
Item 12.c. - Page 13
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
3.3.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Requirements
-~wsc -~
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC.
Table 1 summarizes the required level of treatment for groundwater recharge through surface recharge and
subsurface injection assumed for this analysis. According to CCR Title 22, FAT is required for groundwater
augmentation using direct injection, unless an alternative treatment has been demonstrated to the Division of
Drinking Water (DDW) as providing equal or better protection of public health and has received written approval
from DDW. CCR Title 22, Section 60320.201 defines FAT as "the treatment of an oxidized wastewater ... using a
reverse osmosis (RO) and an oxidation treatment process {AOP)". Groundwater augmentation using surface
spreading requires disinfected tertiary as a minimum level of treatment. For this Investment Analysis, FAT was
assumed for both surface spreading and subsurface injection.
Table 1. Summary of Assumptions for Surface and Subsurface Groundwater Recharge Alternatives
Notes:
1. Must be verified by a tracer study. An 8 month minimum is required for planning level estimates based on numerical modeling.
2. Minimum of 3 ba'rriers and each barrier must achieve a minimum of 1-log reduction. No barrier can achieve more than 6-log.
3. FAT requires Reverse Osmosis (RO) and advanced oxidation treatment (ADP).
3.3.3 Solids Conveyance
This analysis assumes that residuals from the SWRRF, including biosolids and RO concentrate, would be
discharged to the existing trunk lines and conveyed by gravity to the existing WWTP for treatment.
3.4 Financing
For the planning level cost estimate, a 30-year life was assumed with an annual inflation rate of 3% and an
interest rate on 100% debt of 5%. Should the project be funded through a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan, the
interest rate will be half of the General Obligation bond rate at the time of funding approval. Interest rates
would therefore be substantially lower than 5% (most recently 1.6%). Grant funding was not considered for the
purpose of this analysis. All costs were annualized and brought back to present value for relative comparison.
11/2/2015 Page 8of18
Item 12.c. - Page 14
Satellite Water Resaurce Recovery Faci/1t1es Planning Study
Investment Analysis
4 Potential RW Alternatives
4.1 Alternative Description
"·~wsc· ":,,~'
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC.
To obtain a range of costs for a potential SWRRF, WSC identified and evaluated five (5) conceptual alternatives.
Each conceptual alternative was identified by a specific location. of the SWRRF and type of beneficial use of the
RW. Table 2 summarizes the conceptual alternatives. Figure 2 illustrates the locations for conceptual
Alternatives 1 and 2 and the corresponding irrigation areas. Figure 3 illustrates the potential locations for
conceptual Alt~rnatives 3, 4, and 5, including potential groundwater injection points for Alternatives 4 and 5.
The potential locations of the SWRRF were limited to outside of the Coastal Zone to limit permitting
requirements. Appendix A provides additional information on design criteria for distribution and treatment.
Table 2. SWRRF Conceptual Alternatives Summary
. _.'.: . :.·; . :; ... : \! ,; '.:·1;. ·. : . . . . .' \,1C· · .. GV\{R;:~·~: :Ji«;·. >
. HWY l~~nd'. · .i: · 1 5 '·: ·:;!"•-'· :·· F·'A. T~> ::."~. ·; througlj , . '.i'/' " ·. ~· "'~!'~ -~d !,"'M ~, ;J'"" ; -<'> j"~ ,: ,;_;: ' •• ·,:.;_""j' <
.· .· 22 :S:T ::.· . !l. ' > ' '.• J ji . • "<;.,,~~I )nJ~CtJO.n /, 1t ' . '•
,· ~ ~ ..... :} :· ··~:~t . ..:_~~~·~~~3~::::.:~.:J:~~~J_::__:wef!~:l:i;JL:.-~.~
Notes:
1. Alternative 4 used three iniection wells, each with a capacity of approximately 190 AFY.
2. Alternative 5 used six injection wells, each with a capacity of approximately 230 AFY.
11/2/2015 Page 9of18
Item 12.c. - Page 15
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
Le~end
0 Potential Trunl(Line Conneetion
~] A!termitii/e ·1-1m~ation Ai~a
~ ~ternatiVe i lrrigatiop Area·
~TPi :ssi:.ocs~ Existing wmP
-.Sewer Trunk Line
~ Coastal Conservancy Boundary
SSLOCSD
Potential SWRRF l mgation Alternatives
...
-~wsc
WATEltSYSTU\15 CONSULTING, lNC.
N
Ji ----======Feet A o 1,:i.sa 2,100
:~n.1~c-: ~~-W-rt:JJ
WATElt SYSTEMS CoNsUll'IWG, INr;, B.L_~~~~--===-~~~~~_L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'~~~~~~~~~~~---'
Figure 2. Potential SWRRF lrrigatwn Alternatives
11/2/2015 Page 10of18
Item 12.c. - Page 16
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
Legend:
-[J: -Pote"ntial:Tn,m_k Line Connection
Potential ~temat~e_-~ ll')Jection Points
Potential Addi~onaJ Alternative _5-Injection Points
--~wsc
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC-
N
A ----====Feet SSLOCSD -o 1,3so 2,100
E Potential-SWRRF ~Al!C!.-C ~ -~roundwater-RechargeAltematiyes :::~-W i::» -
:0. ·WATERS\'Sn:MsColllsUL~HG1 INC, -a,__~~~~~~~~~~~.._~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'-~~~~~~~~~~~~
Figure 3. Pote_ntial SWRRF Groundwater Recharge Locations
11/2/2015 Page 11of18
Item 12.c. - Page 17
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
5 Investment Analysis
~wsc
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, lNC.
For the Investment Analysis, estimates of the unit cost (i.e. $/AF) for each of the SWRRF alternatives were
developed. These estimates are shown Table 3. The cost estimates include cost for the treatment facility,
pipelines, pump stations, customer conversions and annual O&M costs. These planning level costs were based
on cost estimate assumptions from the RRWSP (Cannon 2014) and other sources. Additional details on each of
the cost estimates for each alternative are provided in Appendix C. The cost estimates are for comparison
purpose and should be considered order of magnitude or planning level costs only.
Table 3. Unit Cost Estimates w/o Redundancy Project Cost Savings
To account for potential Redundancy Project cost savings, which may be achieved through construction of a
SWRRF, additional unit cost estimates were developed for each of the SWRRF alternatives. It was assumed that a
SWRRF cou Id divert a portion of the collection system flow and proportionally reduce the total flow at the District's
current WWTP and therefore the size and cost of the Redundancy Project. This is a simplification assumed for the
purposes of the Investment Analysis, however, additional evaluation of the possible reductions in the sizing of the
Redundancy Project will need to be performed in latter phases of the study. It was assumed that the reduced
capital costs for the Redundancy Project could then be applied to the unit costs (i.e. $/AF) for the recycled water
produced at the SWRRF. Estimates of the potential reduction in Redundancy Project capital costs were calculated
using the activated sludge with complex solids handling cost curve from the Construction Costs for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1982 (EPA 1983). The cost curve data were adjusted to 2015 dollars and to
match the latest capital cost estimates for the Redundancy Project and used to establish a relationship between
the capacity of the Redundancy Project and total project cost. For this level of analysis, it was assumed that O&M
cost estimates for the Redundancy Project would not change. Estimates of the potential reductions in capital
costs for the Redundancy Project are shown Table 4.
11/2/2015 Page 12of18
Item 12.c. - Page 18
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
Table 4. Potential Redundancy Pro1ect Cost Savings1
--~wsc -~
WATER SYST[~\S CONSULTING, !NC
Accounting for the potential cost savings that could be achieved in the Redundancy Project through
development of a SWRRF, updated unit cost estimates forthe each of the SWRRF alternatives were developed
and shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Unit Cost Estimates w/ Redundancy Pro1ect Savmgs1
5.1 Supplemental Supply Alternatives
To provide a comparison of the estimated unit costs for recycled water produced by the SWRRF, cost estimates
for several other potential supplemental supply sources were compiled and shown in Table 6. All unit costs were
escalated to July 2015 dollars using the ENR Construction Cost Index.
1 These estimated cost savings are planning level only, and represent order of magnitude· estimates. Additional evaluation
to further refine the estimated cost savings will be completed in the RWFPS.
11/2/2015 Page 13of18
Item 12.c. - Page 19
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Fac1l1ties Planning Study
Investment Analysis
Table 6. Supplemental Water Supply Costs
~wsc
WATER SYSHAlS CONSULTING, lNC.
Note: Unit cost from each reference are escalated to July 2015 based on ENR Construction Cost Index. Financing
assumptions applied by each study are not reconciled.
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Investment Analysis determined that the unit cost of the water from each SWRRF alternative could vary
significantly depending upon the volume and type of beneficial reuse. The agriculture irrigation alternatives
showed a significantly lower unit cost than the groundwater recharge alternatives, primarily related to the
increased treatment costs and reduced efficiencies associated with FAT. Of the different SWRRF options,
Alternative 2, which included 1,677 AFY of agricultural irrigation, appeared to have the lowest unit cost.
The Investment Analysis additionally identified that a SWRRF could potentially reduce the capacity of the
Redundancy Project by reducing the average annual flow to the WWTP. This reduction in capacity could result
in a cost savings ranging from $1.2 to $5 M. When applying this potential cost savings to each of the SWRRF
alternatives, it reduced the unit costs by approximately $100-200 per AF.
Based on the results of the Investment Analysis, it is recommended that the SWRRF concept be carried forward
for further analysis. The estimated unit costs for the agriculture irrigation SWRRF alternatives appear to be cost
competitive with the other identified supplemental supply alternatives. Additional analysis through
development of the RWFPS will help further refine these cost estimates.
One conceptual alternative that was not considered in this Investment Analysis is the construction of an offsite
tertiary or advanced water treatment facility that could treat effluent from the WWTP for use as agriculture
irrigation or groundwater recharge. This facility could be located outside of the Coastal Zone, Tsunami
Inundation Zone and the Arroyo Grande Creek 100-YR Flood Plain, but could take advantage ofthe existing
primary and secondary treatment facilities at the WWTP. Additionally, this facility could be potentially
expanded to receive effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP and realize potential unit costs savings associated
with larger capacity facilities. Considering the potential benefits and cost efficiencies of this conceptual
alternative, it is recommended that it be carried forward in the RWFPS as well.
11/2/2015 Page 14of18
Item 12.c. - Page 20
Satelltte Water Resource Recovery Faci/1t1es Planning Study
Investment Analysis
"'~WSC ~ ·==-
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC.
Appendix A. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT
The RW systems consist of three primary sets of facilities:
);;> SWRRF plant facilities (treatment, storage I equalization and product water pump station)
);;> Distribution system facilities (pipelines, storage and booster pump station)
);;> Customer facilities or recharge facilities (pipeline, recharge basins, and injection wells)
r· Terti·;rY--Satellite-Pf~-;:;t·---: 1
1
: Plant will--include he;dwo;ks, M;;;b~;~e Bior~a~tor and disinfe-ctio;:;~
Title 22 Standards
'. Full Advance Treatment j -Plant will include h~a~works; Mel'Jlbrane-Bioreactor, UV-disinfection and J
i Satellite Plant -. l-disinfection to Title.22-~_tan~ards : __ . · --. -. _ j 1
, Distribution System Facilities ! PJp~tt~es . --: ··-:-·TSized-=t:~-maintain ·a he_ad·i~ss gradi"E;";:;t"o_f_le-ss-t-han-·la ft of hea~loss' per :
_· J 1000 ft:cfr pipelin~ during.peak hour . -. -
: Boost"E;"~ Pump Statl~ns Capacity based on peak hour demand (assumes no gravity system storage)
Station efficiency is assumed to be 75%
All pumps will have Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs)
Irrigation system booster stations will be equipped with a hydropneumatic
tank to control pressure variations
.System 'Storage _ _ l_~~pa~~~~-_!Jase~on_ ~~:rage ~aily fl~~----~-----------------------------..1
: Injection Well Site Siz~ 50' x 50' permanent site; additional construction easements based on site l
: I specific requirements I l : . -. · . ·. · _ -::t::ustomer·or Recharge Facilities -· · _ . -· -
1
1
L-...,__.. _____ ;,_ _________ ~-----~-·---·------_:;·-· ........... ··------~----------· ------~------'------
; Main Irrigation I Sized to maintain a head loss gradient of less than 10 ft of head loss per
i Customer Services ! 1000 ft of pipeline during peak hour ---~
; Recharge._Basin · l Rech_arge rate lft/day_~-------------_ _J
1. Recharge rate was identified from the RRWSP.
Customer Conversion Cost
For this investment Analysis, the cost to convert existing agriculture irrigation to include RW services was
estimated based on either 1) storage tank and pump or 2) flow control valve with backflow prevention
depending on existing customer irrigation system.
1) RW would be pumped to the agriculture customer where it would be stored in an onsite storage tank
along with potable or non-potable water necessary to mean either peak demands or water quality
specific to the crop. From there a pump would be required to irrigation the crops.
2) RW would be pumped to the agriculture customer where it go through a flow control valve and be
combined with potable or non-potable water necessary to mean either peak demands or water quality
specific to the crop. The potable or non-potable line would be fitted with backflow prevention to assure
no cross contamination. It is assumed that both options will cost approximately $50,000 for the
conversion and testing to assure no cross contamination.
11/2/2015 Page 15of18
Item 12.c. - Page 21
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
Appendix B. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
"~WSC
WAT£R 5YST(MS CONSULTING, INC.
There are many factors that will go into implementing a RW System. The first step will be to prepare and
complete a RWFPS. On behalf of the District, WSC has prepared and submitted the grant application for the
RWFPS which has been accepted. In preparing the RWFPS, variety of SWRRF locations, sizes and treatment will
be analyzed along with reuse alternatives. Through this process, a recommended alternative will be identified
and refined. Implementing the preferred RW alternative will consist of the following components:
};;> Preliminary and Final Design
};;> Permitting
};;> Environmental Documents
};;> Coordination and Public Outreach
};;> Implementation Schedule
Preliminary and Final Design
Depending on the preferred RW alternative, Preliminary and Final Design can include groundwater modeling,
test injection well, water quality sampling and design of the SWRRF.
Permitting
The permitting process can include obtaining the Water Recycling Requirement and updating the District's
Water Discharge Requirement permit through Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board;
infrastructure permits; and obtain approval from the State Water Resource Control Board in accordance with
California Water Code sections 1210-1212 addressing water rights before changing the purpose of use of treated
water. A Salt and Management Plan will need to be developed by the Northern Cities Management Area
agencies, which would identify the groundwater quality, implementation plan and monitoring program. If
groundwater recharge is the preferred alternative, the implementation plan and monitoring program will need
to be updated to the preferred alternative.
E:nvironme:ntal Documents
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, it is anticipated the District will need to prepare an
Initial Study followed by an Environmental Impact Report for the recommended project. To apply for federal
funding sources, the District may also need to prepare an Environmental Assessment and an Environmental
Impact Statement to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.
Coordination and Public Outreach.
The development of SWRRF would benefit the water purveyors/users in and around the District's service area by
providing a supplemental drought resilient water supply. Since the District does not currently supply potable
water, the District would need to developed partnerships with interested water agencies and/or agricultural
farmers. The District may also need to focus on public outreach to obtain public acceptance. The public
outreach program can vary depending on the preferred alternative.
Implementation Schedule
An implementation schedule will need to be develop to identify and schedule funding opportunities, permitting
requirements, design and construction.
11/2/2015 Page 16of18
Item 12.c. - Page 22
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
Appendix C. DETAILS OF RW COST ESTIMATE
~wsc
WATER SYSHMS CONSULTING, lNC.
Planning level cost estimates for each potential alternative were developed. Assumptions used as the basis of
these cost estimates are discussed in this section.
Scope and Accuracy
The cost estimates included in this Investment Analysis are based upon the Class 4 Conceptual Report
Classification of Opinion of Probable Construction Cost as developed by the Association for the Advancement of
Cost Engineering Cost Estimate.Classification System. The purpose of a Class 4 Estimate is to provide a
conceptual' level effort that has an expected accuracy range from -30% to +50% and the inclusion of an
appropriate contingency for planning and feasibility studies. The conceptual nature of the design concepts and
associated costs presented in this Investment Analysis are based upon limited design information available at
this stage of the projects.
These cost estimates have been developed using a combination of data from RS Means CostWorks®, recent bids,
experience with similar projects, current and foreseeable regulatory requirements and an understanding ofthe
necessary project components. As the projects progress, the design and associated costs could vary significantly
from the project components identified in this Investment Analysis.
For projects where applicable cost data is available in RS Means CostWorks® (e.g. pipeline installation), cost data
released in Quarter 2 of 2015, adjusted for San Luis Obispo, California, is used. Material prices were adjusted in
some cases to provide estimates that align closer with actual local bid results.
For projects where RS Means CostWorks® data is not available, cost opinions are generally derived from bid
prices from similar projects, vendor quotes, material prices, and labor estimates, with adjustments for inflation,
size, complexity and location.
Cost opinions are in 2015 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of: 10,037 for July 2015).
When budgeting for future years, appropriate escalation factors should be applied.
Cost opinions are "planning-level" and may not fully account for site-specific conditions that will affect the
actual costs,, such as soils conditions and utility conflicts.
Markups and Contingencies
For the development of the planning level cost estimates, several markups and contingencies are applied to the
estimated construction costs to obtain the total estimated project costs. The markups are intended to account
for costs of engineering, design, administration, and legal efforts associated with implementing the project
(collectively, Implementation Markup). For the Investment Analysis, two different Implementation Markups are
used depending on the type of project. Irrigation projects have a 30% markup, while groundwater recharge
projects have a 40% markup. This difference is to account for the greater number of studies required and the
extended implementation schedule of a groundwater recharge project.
11/2/2015 Page 17of18
Item 12.c. - Page 23
Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study
Investment Analysis
-~wsc "'~
WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, lNC.
Unaccounted-for Items and Contingency account for additional construction costs that could not be anticipated
at the time ofthis analysis. ·A summary of the markups and contingencies applied in this
Investment Analysis are presented in the table below.
EstimatecftonstruttiortCost
' ' -""" --_ .... ----· ':.' --
+ I 20% of Construction Subtotal for Contingency
= I Subtotal 1
· ~i:':;~.:·1 :,303 of.sy~fptal ·1for;1 rr:!gatton. (or: 4d%: Q.f s~~-fo~a!. i:fo·r:,GRR~,Y:~o~,1 ryf plerr1~n~~ti9i):;~Q~("j
, "'"" • ..:.........:.._-..... " -,, ,"_ ,..!_:__;__ ________ ._-_ -~ -c '----· ___ _,__._": • ' -• __ _:_.:..::r -,•
= Tot_al Capital Cost i
Excluded Costs
>-Overall Program Management. If the magnitude of the capital program exceeds the capacity of City
staff to manage all of the work, then the services of a program management team may be required.
>-Public Information Program. Depending on the relative public acceptability of a major RW facility or a
group of facilities, there may be a need for a public information program, which could take many
different forms. It is recommended that the City engage in a proactive public outreach program in
coordination with other existing or planned outre.ach programs.
Unit Cost for Potential Alternatives
Unit costs of the various a'lternatives are compared using the annual payment method. The unit cost is
calculated with this method by adding the annual payment for borrowed capital costs to the annual O&M cost
and dividing by the annual project yield. This method provides a simple comparison between potential
alternatives in this lnvestrl')ent Analysis. The factors described below are used to calculate the unit cost with the
annual payment method.
The economic factors used to analyze the estimated costs for each of the project concepts are:
>-Inflation: Escalation of capital and O&M costs is assumed to be 3.0% based on a combination of
California CCI and Western Region Consumer Price Index (CPI} for the past 10 years (June 2004 to June
2014}. The average annual escalation rate for California CCI is 3.6%, while the average annual inflation
rate for CPI is 2.3%.
>-Project Financing: Interest Rate & Payback Period: 5% over 30 years. Note that State Revolving Fund
(SRF} loans are at a lower rate and potentially shorter payback period.
>-Useful Life of Facilities: The useful life of facilities will vary based on several factors, including type of
facility, operating'conditions, design life, and maintenance upkeep. Structural components of most
facilities are typically designed to last 50 years or longer. However, mechanical and electrical
components tend to have a much shorter lifespan and typically require replacement or rehabilitation at
regular intervals .. To simplify the lifecycle evaluation, this Investment Analysis assumes that all facilities
have a useful life matching the financing payback period of 30 years.
11/2/2015 Page 18of18
Item 12.c. - Page 24